oohpapi44

iTrader: (1)

Not disagreeing with you, if the cop didn't have the equipment to perform the check, then he should have left him alone. But that has nothing to do with quotas. If it did, the officer would have found a way to write a ticket. It actually goes against the case of quotas.

Really, please explain exactly how an officer makes money for the city. That's a myth and has no factual basis that people keep spreading for their own agenda. The money from tickets rarely (IF EVER) stays within their own jurisdiction so why would the officer care about the money aspect? It's not like they get a bonus of whatever revenue is produced.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

wow, lots of opinions on this.

probably not much but judging a cop simply on how many tickets/arrests they do is tricky because it can be so easily abused by the cop.

i thought maybe there might be a ratio of serious crimes vs. traffic citations but then the cop's at a disadvantage if they happen to work in an area that doesn't have much serious crime or for whatever reason the crime rate drops, so it's tricky.

a vigilant police officer should do their job, which is obviously writing tickets and/or arresting people who break the law. when a quota comes into play, they're likely to go for the 'low hanging fruit' - or whatever gets the quota done most easily - it's human nature.

it's not the cop's fault either that so many of the laws are so utterly stupid. like requiring front license plates in california. yes, someone here will say why it's a good idea, but why then do countless states not require them and don't have a problem with that? why is dark tint illegal? is it because of concern the driver can't see properly, or because cops are worried about approaching a car they can't see into? i think such a law is a waste of time. if someone in a tinted car wants to shoot a cop for example, they can do it through the glass whether the cop can see in or not, and from a distance they couldn't see much anyway.

requiring 3 seconds of stop at a stop sign in NY? that's stupid. i guarantee 99% of people don't do it. why? because it's stupid and unnecessary. but some safety **** decided it would be a good idea.

in many states the speed limits are without question DELIBERATELY TOO LOW for reasonable driving, so that it's EASY to write speeding tickets. there's a town in florida (starke i think) that is such a place, and activist citizens fought and won the right to erect billboard signs outside town warning people of the speed traps! the police weren't happy but they lost, and the public won against police abuse of power.

police don't have an easy job. but they make the public like them less when they do stupid things and abuse their power. but not just the police, the politicians and 'do gooders' push for and pass stupid laws.

true but how does a quota help that difference?

agreed - stupid drivers are no better than stupid police or stupid laws.

i disagree that quotas will do much of anything to root out lazy cops. instead of 'quotas', departments could just analyze the stats for the cops (without quotas in place) and interview cops whose arrest/citation stats are far below their peers to understand why.

he who is without sin cast the first stone. i can guarantee you break the law one way or another every time you drive.

why yes, yes you can, if the laws are stupid and the police are enforcing stupid laws to achieve a stupid quota.

qft.

oh yeah.

i agree!

again, statistical analysis of all the cops activity is a better way than quotas.

grabber2

Cop need to take these scum out of the road by arrest, impound their car. Just tickets??? What is the point of that, they most likely got LIC suspened & no insurance due to no $$$. Another silly thing cop done to the public. These people can cause extreme danger to public!!!

mmarshall

First of all, I myself don't cast stones.....it's not my job, but that of the police and judges/juries to do that. If I tell someone that if they don't screw up, they probably won't get written-up, that is not casting stones.......it is only stating a fact. And "Breaking the Law" is a relative matter. Doing a couple of miles over the limit, due to speedometer-error or things like the effect of gravity while descending a hill, or maybe not using a turn-signal for the entire required distance (in VA, 50-100 feet before a turn, depending on the speed limit) is not exactly the same as doing something behind the wheel that will put your life (or someone else's life) at risk like DWI/DUI, reckless driving, backing out of a driveway without checking for kids or pets behind the car, or running red lights at significant speed. A cop is not likely to write you up for a couple of MPH over the limit, but it will be another matter if you are really speeding and/or drunk....you could wind up in a jail cell for the night.


We get the laws that many people want. I personally agree that many of the "Traffic-Calming" laws and devices like 4-way stops, DO NOT ENTER signs, speed-bumps, barracades, unneeded traffic lights, etc....... are dumb and unnecessary (and I hate some of them), but neighborhood civic groups usually petition for these laws and devices.....and the politicians give it to them.

IS-SV

I talked to the cop in my family about this (the topic being quotas, not all the other unrelated rhetoric that we see here).

He said he has no quotas in his jurisdiction, he does not want or like quotas, he does not need quotas. I respect his opinion as LEO, knowing his character, professionalism, education/training, discipline (ex-military).

mmarshall

Well, that's pretty much what I said in an earlier post....that any cop with two eyes and two ears, particularly in a dense-traffic area, because of the sheer number of scofflaws, can probably write more tickets, on any given day, then any quotas that the politicians or their bosses can come with.

IS-SV

No it's not pretty much the same, you said "quotas are a moot point". I implied something different, so I will spell it out below:

That's exactly why no quotas are needed and they should not be dictated by ignorant politicians. Quotas can actually interfere with effective law enforcement and public safety by misdirecting law enforcement resources.

I give the thumbs up to the officers noted in article. I also respect the opinion of the officer on my wife's side of the family. I know the strength of his character, having known him well before he became a sworn officer.

Jewcano

iTrader: (4)

Not sure if you ever worked anywhere that REQUIRED a met quota, but I have. I used to work at a commission based job which set a quota I HAD to meet monthly, regardless if it was slow or busy. I had to sell sell sell. If I made over my quota, I would be rewarded at the end of the month as long as my monthly total was over the quota. If I made under, well, I'd be warned, if I continuously made under quota then I'd get a docking at my hourly pay. If I still didn't hit it, I'd be let go.

So you saying that cops benefit nothing by running the quota system, I'll argue that if they aren't receiving the money, they're probably running a similar system that I was under. If that is the case, their jobs DEPEND on giving people tickets, THUS nullifying the whole ideal that it's based on safety, and not generating revenue.

It is starke. I've been through there before. Speed limit goes from 65 on the highway, to 45, to 35 in less than half a mile. It's a joke though, you're driving through the town at 35mph where 45mph is more than adequate. Total speed trap, had my friends not been with me and warned me about it, I probably would've gotten a ticket.

gengar

And the huge assumption you're making is that on any given shift on any given assignment (which, in the LA case, apparently could be any time of day, on just a short segment of a minor street), there's no chance that there wouldn't be sufficient violations spread out over the course of a shift that the cop would always be able to satisfy the quota. I don't buy it, not for one second.

Furthermore, if quotas really aren't needed as you argue, then there's no reason for the LAPD to use such a system. If it's truly an issue of avoiding underperforming cops, there are other ways of handling it that actually attack the problem - not by implementing some absurd, effortless, brainless, hands-off (mis)management style that is ripe for abuse. If there are bad cops out there who really are sleeping on the job, implementing a quota system isn't suddenly going to make them good cops - in fact, I'd argue that they are most likely to abuse the system.


Your assumption is that everyone who is getting pulled over or ticketed is actually breaking the law, and to the extent that the citation claims. That's what's being questioned when we're talking about abuse of power, isn't it?

Your attempt to equate "ambition" to "quotas" is a bit silly. The problem here is that cops aren't regular people so comparing them to regular people doesn't work. While on duty, they have considerable power, which if abused can be used to affect innocent people far more negatively than how others can. Even abuse of traffic citation powers can have tremendous financial impact on a driver - not just directly from the fines, but also long-term from rising insurance costs. That's why any systemic causes of abuse within the police system must be avoided - and why quota systems should always be rejected.

mmarshall

Well, I give a lot of respect to most police officers, too. I don't think that you and I disagree on that point. Most of them, though, if they are really diligent, could write more tickets than there are hours and minutes in a day, quotas or no quotas.

(I was just being facetious about the coffee and donuts, as that is a comonnly-held, but sometimes incorrect, stereotype)

IS-SV

I think we have similar respect for the mostly good and dedicated police officers. We definitely don't agree on quotas, you think it's a "moot point", I think it should not be allowed. That's a significant difference, directly related to the topic of this thread (for a change). But everybody has a different view of course.

The reality is I see more cops at Starbucks than any other chain store (not at doughnut shops like the outdated stereotype).

mmarshall

Well, I agree. Many jurisdictions have so many scoflaws that quotas are just unnecessary figures on paper. What really matters is what kind of job the cops actualldo out on the streets.


In most cases, people are breaking laws when they get a ticket.....cops generally aren't going to waste their time writing up stuff that they know isn't going to hold up in traffic-court, if someone decides to fight the ticket (and many do fight them). But, like I told someone else in a reply above, there is a big difference between a couple of MPH over the limit or a trivial turn-signal offense and a serious matter like DUI/DWI, excessive speed, or reckless driving/street-racing. Most cops won't write you up for a couple of MPH over the limit (it's a waste of time)....but get caught drunk, with drugs, without a valid drivers' license, or plunging through a red light and causing an accident (many people run red lights) and it's a different matter.

seanlee

i would love police officer to give out ticket to those who aren't driving in the proper lane (e.g. driving 50 on the fastest lane and refuse to move), or one does illegal mod (e.g. unauthorized HID on a raised tuck) instead of hiding in the corner and set up speed trap.

but that would require too much of work. i.e. chasing people down and observe traffic flow. obviously no one would do it when you can just set up a nice speed trap and relax in you car.

i am not against quota, but i believe the ticket should be weighted accordingly.
a ticket going 35+ should not be weighted as low as a ticket going 15+. a ticket for illegal mod should not be weight as light as a ticket for forget turn on your light at night.

Habious

Quotas make cops LOOK for some reason to pull someone over...anyone...for any reason they can think of.

If everyone's driving along, traffic is flowly freely, and everyone's doing what they're supposed to be doing...this should be a GOOD thing.

A police officer observing this should think "Yeah...nice!"

Throw in a quota...and his attitude suddenly changes.

He's going to look for something. "That tint looks legal, but it could be close. I'm gonna pull him over and find out."

Oh, and by the way...IT REALLY SCREWS UP THE TRAFFIC FLOW WHEN THE COP IS ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH HIS BLUE BLINKY LIGHTS GOING!!

And, and in my example above...the cop got paid for those 90 minutes...my friend didn't. He was late for work.

seanlee

that is entirely true.

one of the reason for traffic congestion is because present of police. people get scared and start stepping on brake.

so guess which one is safer?

1. everyone is doing 90 MPH
2. 1/3 of vehicle is doing 65 MPH, 1/3 of vehicle is doing 50 MPH, 1/3 of vehicle is doing 30 MPH. and people start changing lanes.

speed is not the problem. driving education and traffic law is the problem. if you can get ride of all the slow moving cars from the fast lane, you will reduce traffic accidents significantly.